Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hanford Engineer Works/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2024 [1].
Hanford Engineer Works edit
This article was split from Hanford Site. During the FAR of Hanford Site, I decided to create a new article on the World War II establishment. This brings it into line with the articles on Los Alamos, Berkeley and Oak Ridge, all of which have subarticles on their role in the Manhattan Project. The sources complain about how Hanford has been overlooked compared with Los Alamos and Oak Ridge. This seems to be the case, but not for any scarcity of sources.
On Wikipedia the fault is mine. I began overhauling the Manhattan Project articles over ten years ago, but did not deal with Hanford, because Hanford Site was already a featured article. I did gather material though, and overhauling Hanford Site for its FAR made me aware of how poor the coverage of Hanford was compared with the other sites. So I took the opportunity to create this article.
It is a subarticle of both that article and Manhattan Project, and covers the site during the years of the Manhattan Project. The article contains a lot of beautiful images, many of which I located and uploaded specifically for it. The article has recently passed an A-class review that included source and image reviews.
Support from PM edit
I recently reviewed this excellent article at Milhist A-Class, and consider it meets all the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Support / Image review from Adam Cuerden edit
I've done an image review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hanford Engineer Works, and would support the promotion of this article. I mean, I'm sure others will pick apart the text more than I, but I'm very happy with the images. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 01:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Support Comments from JennyOz
edit
Placeholder for now, will take a while. But... Hawkeye, I was just making my way up from bottom of FAC page and this nom doesn't appear there? JennyOz (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Hawkeye, told you it'd take a while! Lots of questions, most just for confirmation of intention. It was heavy going to read this as someone with very little knowledge of its subjects but I did find it very interesting and informative. I doublechecked it against the Hanford Site article and whilst there is a little unavoidable overlap, I find both articles can stand alone very well. I've added some Misc notes at end which you might (or not) prefer to read first.
I still though, per my note above of 6 March, don't understand why this nomination appears on here but not on here???
lede
- The acquisition was not completed before Manhattan Project ended in December 1946 - the Manhattan?
- The site suffered an outage on 10 March 1945 - The Works?
- The Manhattan Project ended on 31 December 1946 and control of the Hanford site passed - site and works?
Contractor selection
- Approximately four tonnes of uranium was required to produce one kilogram of plutonium - no conversions intentional?
- seemed beyond human capability."[9] - move full stop out?
- met with Dupont's executive committee - DuPont's
- Groves assured Dupont's president - DuPont's
- Dupont initially refused payment, - DuPont
Land acquisition
- White Bluffs - link White Bluffs, Washington
- Rattlesnake Mountain - link Rattlesnake Mountain (Benton County, Washington)
- were based in Seattle, or Portland and - is comma needed?
- during the Great Depression. - refine link to Great Depression in the United States?
- and Justice Departments - change link to US federal ie United States Department of Justice rather than generic article?
- Priest Rapids -link
Township
- two fruit packing warehouses - add hyphen fruit-packing
- Two types of barracks were erected: two-wing barracks for women and four-wing barracks for men. White and non-white people had separate barracks. Barracks construction commenced on 6 April 1943 and eventually 195 barracks were erected - that's 6x barracks. I reckon the 3rd and 5th (or 6th) can go?
- Only two types. White and non-white, and men and women were separated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, was not alluding to number of types, I was mentioning the 6x repetition of the word "barracks".
- My suggestions reduced them to 4;
- Two types of barracks were erected: two-wing barracks for women and four-wing
barracksfor men. White and non-white people had separate barracks. Barracks construction commenced on 6 April 1943 and eventually 195barrackswere erected. - Or, in last sentence,
Barracks'Construction commenced on 6 April 1943 and eventually 195 barracks were erected, ...' JennyOz (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Only two types. White and non-white, and men and women were separated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- There were 110 for white men, 21 for black men, 57 for white women and seven for black women. - numeral 7 per mos
- Not all were used for accommodation, and one white-women wing was turned over to the Women's Army Corps. - if not for accommodation what did WACs use it for? (And... what was role of WACs at Hanford?)
- For heating, they had a wood- or coal-burning stove in each unit - mention temps at Hanford?
- In all, 820 double huts and 272 single huts were bought from the Pacific Huts company in Seattle - were they Quonset huts? (per "This design was conjured in the Seattle area and was termed the Pacific Hut." yeah not RS and per Camp Columbia (Hanford) and this. Your sources do not name them?
- one aligned north–south and the other east-west. Both were 200 feet (61 m) wide, but the north-south runway was 4,000 feet (1,200 m) long and the east–west only - 2x dashes v 2x hyphens
- tendered the lowest bid of $103,005.30 - is the 30 cents important?
- 23,000,000 board feet - link Board foot
Richland
- which was already being acquired, instead. - "instead" is redundant?
- The citizens of Richland were given until 15 November 1943 - no date was given at "Richland was chosen", so for context, how long were the citizens given?
- The village plan initially called for a village of 6,500 people - 2x village, second one can go?
- Two 5,000-kilowatt and one 10,000-kilowatt substation were built - plural substations
Personnel
- About thirteen percent were women, and 16.45 percent - mos, both words or both numerals
- Matthias instituted a five-and-a-half-day and then a six-day work week - in that order?
- An eight-week campaign against absenteeism among the construction workforce reduced the rate of absenteeism from 9.8 percent - 2x absenteeism, second one can go?
- would fly them from their home state - fly them in (or that just me hearing fifo so often?)
- The first of them arrived at the Hanford Engineer Works on 1 September. - add year?
Facilities
- The ideal canning substance had a high resistance to corrosion by water, a low capacity for absorbing neutrons, and be capable of transmitting heat to the cooling water. - "be" seems wrong in this statement, swap to 'was'?
- This involved cleaning the slug with carbon tetrachloride and sprayed with - tense spraying?
- would normally run at 65 °C (149 °F), well below - this is only temp C-->F
- laminated steel and masonite sheets, - masonite (x5) is brand name ie needs cap M?
Separation
- In the original plan there was to be eight separation plants - were to be?
Operations
- would require only a few kilograms of plutonium - convert
- containing kilogram-quantity shipments - convert?
- On 10 March 1945, a Japanese balloon bomb struck a high-tension line running between Grand Coulee and Bonneville. This caused an electrical surge in the lines to the reactors. - did the Japanese know what Hanford was processing or just a coincidence in locality?
Postwar
- Possible replacement companies... - explain intention of keeping Hanford operating now war over?
- What do you want me to say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know! I suppose I expected it would be shut down at end of war, so wondered if these replacement companies were for wind-down operations, or if Hanford was to continue processing with no planned end date. I've read a bit more so I'm fine for you to leave it as is. JennyOz (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- What do you want me to say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Until news arrived of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, - add 6 August ie 'of the 6 August atomic bombing of Hiroshima'?
- adjacent to its research centre in - center
- During the Cold War, - link?
- sixty thousand weapons built for the U.S. nuclear arsenal - this is only use of "U.S." ie with dots
- The United States Department of Energy (DOE) offers free guided tours of the site, which can be reserved via the department's website. - obviously not intentional but unfortunately that sounds like an ad? Maybe drop "free" and change "which can be reserved via the department's website" to just 'via its website'. And DOE acronym not needed?
References
- Gerber, Michele (June 1996) - chrono, move up?
- Nichols, Kenneth (1987). The Road to Trinity: A Personal Account of How America’s Nuclear - curly apos
Images
- no alts?
- Image caption "Aerial view of 300 Area in 1944" - use lowercase for 'area' to match accompanying text?
- Image caption "Front face of B reactor in 2013" - use cap R
Tables
- Table Reactor startup - 'Charging completed' column is alone aligned right intentionally or make all columns right aligned? (and per Land acquisition table and Housing authorized table)
Misc
- Please add Use American English template - if only to help stop the itch to "fix" aluminum:)
- HEW is used in lede a lot and then once in Site selection section but not thereafter, ie Hanford Engineer Works is used - intentional?
- Hanford site (x6) v Hanford Site (x2)
- I noticed when checking some links that the articles of eg Franklin Matthias, B Reactor, DuPont, etc have prose/links to Hanford site - should any be changed to this Works article?
- Manhattan Project is dmy, Hanford Site is mdy and Hanford Engineer Works is dmy - all intentional because MP and HEW are military but HS more a civilian area?
- I'm wondering about work hours. I'd guess some workers were in plants at all times. Did plants etc operate 24/7? Anything about workers' shifts in sources?
That's me. Let me know any problems with my comments. JennyOz (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I've added 3 clarifications above and have one new question for you...
- explosives department under Roger Williams known as TNX. - change "known as" to 'code named' eg this?
Source reviewish edit
Source formatting seems consistentish. Is Plutopia a reliable source? Leslie Groves was pretty deeply involved in the project, can we rely on his word in #177 and similar? I didn't notice any source that blatantly did not belong and the sauces used seem like the ones you'd expect on this topic, but this is hardly my field of expertise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Plutopia is a reliable source. It has won multiple prizes for historical works. The author, Kate Brown, is a is a Professor of Science, Technology and Society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Groves's book is widely cited. In fact by all of the sources cited in the article except those written before it was published, including the official history. Groves was critical of historians who relied entirely on documents. Most of the references refer to his own motivations, or are duplicated by other sources. The outlier is, oddly enough, fn 177. When I double-checked I found another version of the story, cited by the National Parks Service [2] in which the sum is 32 cents. I'm going with Groves's and DuPont's version, which makes more cents, but am willing to remove the sentence if it is a problem. (Maybe @NuclearSecrets: will know more.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Kusma (support) edit
Reviewing.
- Lead: "The HEW erected 554 buildings". I may be misunderstanding things, but if the HEW it is a "nuclear production complex" I don't see how it can erect buildings; that would have been the HEW's owners?
- "Construction commenced in March 1943 on a massive and technically challenging construction project." perhaps do not duplicate "construction" here?
- Site selection: "Physicists at the Metallurgical Laboratory were more sanguine; Eugene Wigner claimed they could be built on the Potomac River near Washington, DC" here "they" are the reactors, not the physicists. It might also be better to first say what the security concerns before explaining that Wigner dismissed them.
- "for planning purposes it was intended ... The ideal site was described by eight criteria:" I think it would be great to state in this section when exactly this planning took place.
- Land acquisition: perhaps remind us who Stimson was
- Is this necessary? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is not strictly necessary in the sense that (a) it would be a silly point to oppose over and (b) you have introduced him. My point is that I read this and thought "huh, who's that? Sounds like a powerful guy" and had to ctrl-F him (easy on my laptop, hard on mobile) so another word about him would be helpful. Perhaps it should be embarrassing for me that I don't know him. —Kusma (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is this necessary? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Area E, which was acquired only if necessary" shouldn't this be "was to be acquired only if necessary"?
- Hanford: "Construction was expedited by locating them on the sites of existing villages, where they could take advantage of the buildings" who are "they"?
- What is a "hutment"? It redirects to shanty town.
- "Groves released construction workers working on barracks by purchasing hutments." how did purchasing hutments release construction workers?
- "The school closed on 13 February 1945" do we know why?
- "The subcontractor ran afoul of wartime regulations requiring the company to hire local drivers, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who cited safety issues." can you make this easier to understand, also for people who don't know that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters is a union? Is it the union referred to in the sentence "He negotiated a settlement with the union"?
- Health and safety: do we know of any cases of radiation sickness or long term injury caused by radioactive materials?
- Not from the wartime period per se; the postwar period is covered in Hanford Site#Environmental concerns Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fabrication: "Metal Fabrication and Testing (500) Area" what about the 500? is this the area designated 500? where is that on the map?
- Irradiation: maybe remind us again who TNX is
- "each reactor would require 30,000 US gallons per minute" gallons of cooling water
- Why is the section called "irradiation"? A lot of it is about water and reactor construction
- Do we know how much helium was used for the cooling?
- Xenon-135: I don't understand whether they did anything about the Xenon-135, or just loaded the reactor differently.
- Separation: "separate the plutonium in the irradiated slugs from the uranium" how long were the slugs irradiated for? the "irradiation" section did not say
- Operations: there is some context missing here. It would be helpful to explain that both Thin Man and Fat Man were plutonium based, and what the problem with Thin Man was, and how much plutonium they needed.
- "On 1 May four tubes in D reactor were loaded with 264 slugs containing bismuth. The irradiated bismuth slugs were shipped to Los Alamos for processing" is this connected to the polonium production or is it a separate thing?
- Separate. Bismuth is irradiated to produce polonium, and "polonium was required for the Fat Man's neutron initiators". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- "There was intense pressure [...] to produce more plutonium [..] in late July for operational use." is the (fairly euphemistic) "operational use" just Fat Man?
- Postwar: from 1947, was the complex no longer called "Hanford Engineer Works"? Was there a new name for the facilities?
A very detailed article about an important part of the Manhattan project. Excellent work, but I think a few clarifications would help. —Kusma (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.